BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.74 of 2017

Date of Instt. 17.03.2017

Date of Decision: 21.02.2018

Om Raj S/o Ram Ditta R/o H. No.B-16106, Mohala Pandora, Near Sangat Pura Gurdwara Nawanshahar, Punjab-144514

..........Complainant Versus

1. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., E-8, EPIP RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302022 (Head Office) through its registered/authorized Signatory.

2. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 2 Second Floor, Puda Complex, Near Ladowali Road, Jalandhar (Branch office) through its registered/authorized Signatory.

..….…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Sunil Thapar, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. AK Arora, Adv and Sh. Nitish Arora, Adv Counsels for the OP No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is having a Truck bearing Registration No.PB-07-L-3092, Chasis No.426010GXZ205906, Engine No.20G62233667 and the same is insured by the OP No.1 from its Branch Office i.e. OP No.2 bearing policy No.10003/31/16/220446 dated 29.08.2015. The period of the aforesaid policy was 29.08.2015 to midnight of 28.08.2016 and the complainant has paid the premium of Rs.27,819/- for the above said policy to OP No.1.

2. That on 19.02.2016, the truck of the complainant met with an accident. The driver of the complainant's truck had lodged a DDR in Adarsh Kotwali Nagar, Barabanki, Bihar regarding accident. After the accident, the complainant however managed to bring back the truck from Bihar after necessary repairs and also borne the expenses of Rs.39,215/- for the same by the complainant, but till date the truck is not in working condition and the complainant got the estimated amount for the repair of the truck, which is amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- approximately. The complainant many times approached to OP No.2 as its registered branch office regarding the claim of damages, but neither OP No.2 nor OP No.1 pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant served a legal notice through his counsel to the OP No.1 and 2, but no reply was received from the OP No.1 and 2 till date. There has been a deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.1 and 2 for not providing proper/ sufficient claim to the complainant. Therefore, OP No.1 and 2 are liable to pay the proper claim and compensation to the complainant and as such, the present complaint filed with the prayer that complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant as insurance claim amount and be also directed to pay Rs.39,215/- expenses, borne by the complainant to bring back truck from Bihar and also pay interest on the aforesaid amount @ 18% per annum and also OPs be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for harassment and OPs be also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, both the OPs appeared through their counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practices on the part of the OPs and that being so the present complaint is not maintainable. It is further alleged that the claim of the complainant has already been settled by the OPs as per assessment made by the Surveyor and claim of Rs.36,500/- has been paid by the OPs to the complainant. It is further alleged that immediately on the receipt of information qua the accident of insured vehicle, Sh. R.M. Chauhan was appointed as Surveyor to assess the loss, who has submitted his survey report with the company assessing loss to the tune of Rs.36,500/-. Acting on the report of the Surveyor, the claim was processed and accordingly, an amount of Rs.36,500/- was paid to the complainant, that being so the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the factum in regard to purchase of insurance policy as well as causing of accident of the insured vehicle is admitted, but the remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the insured amount as assessed by the Surveyor has been already paid, therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and then one of the witness Gagandeep tendered his own affidavit Ex.CB alongwith documents Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-12 and then complainant OM Raj closed the evidence.

5. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of the Authorized Signatory Ex.OA and affidavit of Surveyor Sh. R.M. Chauhan Ex.OB and Survey Report Ex.O-1 and then closed the evidence of the OPs.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. After taking into consideration the pleading of the complainant as well as the OPs, it reveals that the OPs alleged that the vehicle of the complainant was admittedly met with an accident and the said vehicle is insured with the OP and accordingly, Surveyor was appointed, who inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss caused to the vehicle, vide his report Ex.O-1 and further, the Surveyor brought on the file his own affidavit Ex.OB and categorically proved on the file that the loss caused to the vehicle is Rs.36,500/- and similar facts has been proved by the witness of the OP by producing on the file his affidavit Ex.OA and he further categorically deposed in his affidavit that the assessment made by the Surveyor i.e. Rs.36,500/- have been already paid to the complainant as settled amount of the insurance, but the complainant, who filed his affidavit Ex.CA after the written statement of the OPs, wherein the OP categorically stated that the settled amount of Rs.36,500/- has been already paid, the complainant has not rebutted this version of the OP in any manner whether the said amount has been received by the complainant or not, whereas an opportunity was well within the complainant to rebut this version of the OP in his affidavit Ex.CA, but for the best known reason, the complainant neither denied nor accepted this version of the payment of the amount of Rs.36,500/- by the OP to the complainant.

8. Coming to the version of the complainant, who alleged in Para No.3 of the complaint that the complainant get the estimated amount for the repair of the Truck, which is amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- approximately, but in order to substantiate this version, the complainant has not brought on the file any receipt or assessment made by any Mechanic rather the complainant has brought on the file two receipts, whereby assessment of the loss of the vehicle has been assessed, the said report is Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 and as per both the reports, an amount of Rs.9700/- + Rs.29,515/- is mentioned therein respectively and total amount comes to Rs.39,215/- and apparently, this amount has been claimed by the complainant in para No.8 of the complaint being expenses borne by the repair of the vehicle and similar amount has been mentioned by the complainant in his affidavit Ex.CA in para No.3. So, as per the evidence available on the file, the total repair expenses borne are Rs.39,215/-, whereas the Surveyor of the OP has assessed Rs.36,500/-. So, we do not find any big difference between the amount claimed by the complainant and assessed by the Surveyor appointed by the OP, therefore, the version of the Surveyor is accepted and we conclude that the complainant is entitled for the repair of the Truck, the amount assessed by the Surveyor i.e. Rs.36,500/-, but as per version of the OPs, the said amount has been paid to the complainant. We have already discussed above that the complainant has not denied this version nor accepted. So, under these circumstances, we find that it is the duty of the OP to describe the mode of payment in the written statement or in the affidavit Ex.OA, but the OP has not mentioned the mode of payment, rather the counsel for the OP today produced photostat copy of the statement of account allegedly in the name of the complainant Om Raj, wherein the amount of Rs.36,500/- has been shown as a receipt, we have gone through the said statement of account and find that this statement of account is not the account of the complainant as saving account or current account rather it is a loan account, whereby a loan facility was provided to the complainant, against the Truck in question bearing No. PB-07-L-3092, not by other financier rather the sister concern of the OPs i.e. Sh. Ram Transport Finance Company Limited and that sister concern with the connivance of the Ops/Insurance Company got transferred the said amount of Rs.36,500/- in the loan account allegedly open in the name of the complainant, but without the consent of the complainant, it is the amount of the insurance policy claim and insurance company is liable to pay the said amount directly to the complainant, but the OPs have manipulatively and with malafide intention transferred the said amount in the loan account of the complainant, which is run by sister concern of the OP. So, we cannot consider it as payment made to the complainant, rather a harassment has been caused to the complainant by depositing the said amount with the financier i.e. Sh. Ram Transport Finance Company Limited and moreover, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP not to pay the insurance amount directly to the complainant. So, with these observations, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.

9. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to pay an amount of Rs.36,500/- to the complainant as repair charges of the insured Truck alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint i.e. 17.03.2017, till realization and further OPs are directed to pay compensation for harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

21.02.2018 Member President